This week Dr. Lance Allred, Curator of Cuneiform, told me about exhibit ideas for the temporary exhibition space in the DC museum. Together with Dr. Jared Wolfe, a Sumerologist working in the Research, Editorial, and Publications Department, Lance would like to create an exhibit that tells the story of the “rediscovery” of Mesopotamia that started between the 15th and 17th centuries. It was during this period that the West regained interest in this part of the world.
Remarkably, most of this interest was raised through the Bible, especially the Old Testament. But besides from being a starting point, the Bible was also a primary means of interpretation used to make sense of the region during these times of early explorations. Without hesitation, people traveling the region identified cities and ruins with biblical sites. This, however, led to many oversimplifications and misconceptions about the sites discovered. For instance, the Venetian merchant Gasparo Balbi, traveling the area in 1579/80, identified the city of Baghdad as the “New Babel” that had been built on the ruins of the old “biblical” Babel/Babylon. This assumption was repeated again and again by the next generation of explorers, and, therefore, remained the accepted view until the late 17th century. Another persistent misinterpretation was the assumption that the ziggurat Aqar Quf, about 30 kilometers west of Baghdad, was the Tower of Babel of Genesis 11. This idea was very popular even up to the 18th century.

The ziggurat Aqar Quf, formerly known as the Tower of Babel
This should not lead to a general devaluation of these first travelers’ observations. After all, we must keep in mind that they were not trained archaeologists or ancient Near Eastern scholars. These first people that described Mesopotamia from a “Western” point of view were usually merchants. Their travel writing did not have a “scholarly intention,” and although their interest on identifying biblical sites may seem naive, it nevertheless played an important role initiating scholarly and public interest in the region. In general, motivation to learn about ancient Mesopotamia was fueled by the Old Testament to a large degree, providing the basis for the extensive archaeological research that took place in the following centuries.
In the course of broadening their understanding, archaeologists and other scholars gradually realized that their discoveries not only shed a new light on some biblical narratives, but more than that, they introduced us to the world’s oldest highly developed cultures (besides the Egyptian culture). A whole new field of study was eventually born out of efforts initially fueled by interest in the biblical world.
Developing an exhibition that shows the interplay between these travelers, the biblical texts, the sites discovered, and the development of studies in the ancient Near East through artifacts in the Museum Collections is one possibility.
At this point, another exhibition idea comes to mind: What is the relationship between the archaeological image of Mesopotamia and the image conveyed in the Bible? Are there cases in which cuneiform writings could provide external evidence for biblical people or events? Where do we find discrepancies or differences with the Bible that cause us to alter our view? This would be another fascinating exhibition theme worth realizing—perhaps “part two” of a series focusing on Mesopotamia that follows the rediscovery story sketched above.
I hope that they can put some of these ideas into practice in the DC museum because I think that they offer huge potential to create engaging experiences for visitors. For people who would like to learn more about this topic right now, I recommend Bart Ooghe’s article, The Rediscovery of Babylonia.[1]
In my next entry, I’ll discuss the academic lecture series I attended here OKC. Stay tuned!
[1] Ooghe, Bart, “The Rediscovery of Babylonia: European Travelers and the Development of Knowledge on Lower Mesopotamia, Sixteenth to Early Nineteenth Century,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Third Series, 17 (2007): 231-252.